Mike Davis on Distance

Ashley Schaeffer · May 12, 2017

Beyond how many rounds per year are played at lengths over 7000yds, and how many courses even have tee boxes that length....and their respective percentages of the total number of rounds and courses.

I would also love to see data on what percentage of courses in the US host what we would deem elite amateur tournaments or pro tournaments.

-What percentage of courses are longer than 7000 from tips
-What percentage of total rounds played are from tee boxes of 7000+ yds
-What percentage of courses in the US host either elite AM events or pro events

I don't see how Davis can make a statement like he did without knowing data like this.

If 1-2% of courses in the US host big events, than there is no problem. Those courses can set themselves up for tournament revenue and prestige to help with extra cost. The other 98% can be 6400yds for all anyone cares and that's the vast majority of courses

If 1% of players play from 7000+ yds, than the need to design courses like this is pure red herring BS .

My god how many times have i heard "We don't make lefty clubs because it's a small percentage of the market".....But courses need to be designed at 7600yds for the what, 1% of people that will use them?

I'd love to see data that says even 1/4 of golfers out there are hitting the ball far enough that a 6500yd course is too short

I'd love to see data that says even 1/100 of golfers out there are hitting the ball far enough that a 6500yd course is too short. I have never once, ever, stood in the fairway with a wedge and thought, "Boy, I wish I had a seven iron into this one instead."

The Pearl · May 12, 2017

Beyond how many rounds per year are played at lengths over 7000yds, and how many courses even have tee boxes that length....and their respective percentages of the total number of rounds and courses.

I would also love to see data on what percentage of courses in the US host what we would deem elite amateur tournaments or pro tournaments.

-What percentage of courses are longer than 7000 from tips
-What percentage of total rounds played are from tee boxes of 7000+ yds
-What percentage of courses in the US host either elite AM events or pro events

I don't see how Davis can make a statement like he did without knowing data like this.

If 1-2% of courses in the US host big events, than there is no problem. Those courses can set themselves up for tournament revenue and prestige to help with extra cost. The other 98% can be 6400yds for all anyone cares and that's the vast majority of courses

If 1% of players play from 7000+ yds, than the need to design courses like this is pure red herring BS .

My god how many times have i heard "We don't make lefty clubs because it's a small percentage of the market".....But courses need to be designed at 7600yds for the what, 1% of people that will use them?

I'd love to see data that says even 1/4 of golfers out there are hitting the ball far enough that a 6500yd course is too short

Follow the money. The distance angst has nothing to do with the public access courses that the average golfer plays. It has everything to do with the pocket books of the USGA and the elite private courses, as well as, the elite public courses that hold USGA events. I have no doubt they believe if they can roll the ball back than they can some how reduce their operating costs and pocket the marginal profit.

I don't really have a problem with this. If the USGA and the PGA Tour want to reduce the ball so they can try to pocket more cash then have the gonads to have at it and live with the consequences.

My issue with Davis (and Nicklaus) is that they are taking problems they perceive with the Tour and extrapolating it to the regular golfing public and making absurd claims about what is going on out here in the trenches. 90% of the golfing public plays at public access facilities. We are not out here playing 7500 yd courses on tour manicured fairways and bunkers with greens rolling at 13 on the stimp. We aren't spending 4+ hours out here because people are hitting the ball too far. Nor is the average Joe and Jane golfer breaking par because the new Mizuno gear is so darn easy to hit.

He is like a politician that never leaves DC.

Shilgy · May 12, 2017

The past that sticks out in my mind was the 540 yard par 4 that is too short. That is 100% a course design problem. Not a ball problem. They would be better served by making the green smaller with more trouble around it and shortening the hole as one post earlier suggested. Good course design makes for a better golf experience on less land, not more.

That said, roll the ball back 10% or so. Would take a while to convert at the club level but would save money in the long run.

Ashley Schaeffer · May 12, 2017

One interesting take I heard Irwin say on Fehrety wasn't that about the ball going too far per se, but that the wind doesn't affect it. I grew up playing any tour balata I could get my hands on, then the Titleist Professional. Before the Pro V1 was the Maxfli Revolution, Strata, and Precept. The original ProV1 came out when I was a freshman in college. While I noticed it went further, I didn't and still don't believe the modern ball is unaffected by the wind, at least with irons. Maybe I would have taken another club with a wound ball, where now I might not. But it's not like Irwin's quote that (paraphrasing) "Guys now can just hit it into a 20 mph wind without worrying about it." While I don't doubt that the modern ball is less affected by the wind, I think Irwin's take is a huge exaggeration. Just my opinion.

I don't mean to pivot the convo, carry on.

Edit: tout for tour

jslane57 · May 12, 2017

One interesting take I heard Irwin say on Fehrety wasn't that about the ball going too far per se, but that the wind doesn't affect it. I grew up playing any tout balata I could get my hands on, then the Titleist Professional. Before the Pro V1 was the Maxfli Revolution, Strata, and Precept. The original ProV1 came out when I was a freshman in college. While I noticed it went further, I didn't and still don't believe the modern ball is unaffected by the wind, at least with irons. Maybe I would have taken another club with a wound ball, where now I might not. But it's not like Irwin's quote that (paraphrasing) "Guys now can just hit it into a 20 mph wind without worrying about it." While I don't doubt that the modern ball is less affected by the wind, I think Irwin's take is a huge exaggeration. Just my opinion.

I don't mean to pivot the convo, carry on.

I think this is a fine pivot. And may be the best solution. Create a ball rule that has a max spin ratio from driver to wedges. like a 2:1 ratio. If it spins 10,000 rpms off a 47 degree wedge, it must spin 5,000 off a 10.5 degree driver. If you want less spin off the driver, you must give up spin off the wedges. This was kind of how it was in the world of balata balls as if you didn't use a balata, it was a pure distance ball.

Ashley Schaeffer · May 12, 2017

One more thing: For anyone who thinks the modern equipment goes too far, go play your next round from the far forward tees and see if you light the world on fire. I've tried it for fun a few times, and really didn't score much lower. I mean, it was lower, and I got away with a few things, and I realize it's course-dependent, and all that stuff. But I would venture that you don't suddenly shoot 65 instead of 78.

BlackDiamondPar5 · May 12, 2017

The past that sticks out in my mind was the 540 yard par 4 that is too short. That is 100% a course design problem. Not a ball problem. They would be better served by making the green smaller with more trouble around it and shortening the hole as one post earlier suggested. Good course design makes for a better golf experience on less land, not more.
That said, roll the ball back 10% or so. Would take a while to convert at the club level but would save money in the long run.

Other than the handful of courses that host elite events that have added yardage, how so would it save money?

Ashley Schaeffer · May 12, 2017

One interesting take I heard Irwin say on Fehrety wasn't that about the ball going too far per se, but that the wind doesn't affect it. I grew up playing any tout balata I could get my hands on, then the Titleist Professional. Before the Pro V1 was the Maxfli Revolution, Strata, and Precept. The original ProV1 came out when I was a freshman in college. While I noticed it went further, I didn't and still don't believe the modern ball is unaffected by the wind, at least with irons. Maybe I would have taken another club with a wound ball, where now I might not. But it's not like Irwin's quote that (paraphrasing) "Guys now can just hit it into a 20 mph wind without worrying about it." While I don't doubt that the modern ball is less affected by the wind, I think Irwin's take is a huge exaggeration. Just my opinion.

I don't mean to pivot the convo, carry on.
I think this is a fine pivot. And may be the best solution. Create a ball rule that has a max spin ratio from driver to wedges. like a 2:1 ratio. If it spins 10,000 rpms off a 47 degree wedge, it must spin 5,000 off a 10.5 degree driver. If you want less spin off the driver, you must give up spin off the wedges. This was kind of how it was in the world of balata balls as if you didn't use a balata, it was a pure distance ball.

Not a bad idea, but that would likely require changes to drivers as well.

jslane57 · May 12, 2017

One interesting take I heard Irwin say on Fehrety wasn't that about the ball going too far per se, but that the wind doesn't affect it. I grew up playing any tout balata I could get my hands on, then the Titleist Professional. Before the Pro V1 was the Maxfli Revolution, Strata, and Precept. The original ProV1 came out when I was a freshman in college. While I noticed it went further, I didn't and still don't believe the modern ball is unaffected by the wind, at least with irons. Maybe I would have taken another club with a wound ball, where now I might not. But it's not like Irwin's quote that (paraphrasing) "Guys now can just hit it into a 20 mph wind without worrying about it." While I don't doubt that the modern ball is less affected by the wind, I think Irwin's take is a huge exaggeration. Just my opinion.

I don't mean to pivot the convo, carry on.
I think this is a fine pivot. And may be the best solution. Create a ball rule that has a max spin ratio from driver to wedges. like a 2:1 ratio. If it spins 10,000 rpms off a 47 degree wedge, it must spin 5,000 off a 10.5 degree driver. If you want less spin off the driver, you must give up spin off the wedges. This was kind of how it was in the world of balata balls as if you didn't use a balata, it was a pure distance ball.

Not a bad idea, but that would likely require changes to drivers as well.

I don't think equipment would need to change at all. But the testers at the USGA would have to have very clear specs on the clubs they used to test. Anyhow, these are cool solutions. On Fehrety another pro (don't remember who) thought the ball and clubs should keep the same specs, but the ball needed to be a little bigger so it would be affected by the wind...

MtlJeff · May 12, 2017

Beyond how many rounds per year are played at lengths over 7000yds, and how many courses even have tee boxes that length....and their respective percentages of the total number of rounds and courses.

I would also love to see data on what percentage of courses in the US host what we would deem elite amateur tournaments or pro tournaments.

-What percentage of courses are longer than 7000 from tips
-What percentage of total rounds played are from tee boxes of 7000+ yds
-What percentage of courses in the US host either elite AM events or pro events

I don't see how Davis can make a statement like he did without knowing data like this.

If 1-2% of courses in the US host big events, than there is no problem. Those courses can set themselves up for tournament revenue and prestige to help with extra cost. The other 98% can be 6400yds for all anyone cares and that's the vast majority of courses

If 1% of players play from 7000+ yds, than the need to design courses like this is pure red herring BS .

My god how many times have i heard "We don't make lefty clubs because it's a small percentage of the market".....But courses need to be designed at 7600yds for the what, 1% of people that will use them?

I'd love to see data that says even 1/4 of golfers out there are hitting the ball far enough that a 6500yd course is too short

Follow the money. The distance angst has nothing to do with the public access courses that the average golfer plays. It has everything to do with the pocket books of the USGA and the elite private courses, as well as, the elite public courses that hold USGA events. I have no doubt they believe if they can roll the ball back than they can some how reduce their operating costs and pocket the marginal profit.

I don't really have a problem with this. If the USGA and the PGA Tour want to reduce the ball so they can try to pocket more cash then have the gonads to have at it and live with the consequences.

My issue with Davis (and Nicklaus) is that they are taking problems they perceive with the Tour and extrapolating it to the regular golfing public and making absurd claims about what is going on out here in the trenches. 90% of the golfing public plays at public access facilities. We are not out here playing 7500 yd courses on tour manicured fairways and bunkers with greens rolling at 13 on the stimp. We aren't spending 4+ hours out here because people are hitting the ball too far. Nor is the average Joe and Jane golfer breaking par because the new Mizuno gear is so darn easy to hit.

He is like a politician that never leaves DC.

Oh I agree, I doubt either guy truly knows or cares about real amateurs or their golfing experience.

golfer07840 · May 12, 2017

Watching highlights of Jason Day, and can't help but think "Boy he isn't nearly as built or strong as Jack was. It must be the ball!"

Ok, I'm not. I'm just kidding.

jslane57 · May 12, 2017

Watching highlights of Jason Day, and can't help but think "Boy he isn't nearly as built or strong as Jack was. It must be the ball!"

Ok, I'm not. I'm just kidding.

Well, they were probably within an inch or so in height, and the same weight. And, no, Jack didn't train the same as Jason does, but as far as golf fitness, was there really anyone stronger than Jack? Seriously, I doubt it.

Roadking2003 · May 12, 2017

but golf courses are not closing because the ball is going to far

This is true

golfer07840 · May 12, 2017

Watching highlights of Jason Day, and can't help but think "Boy he isn't nearly as built or strong as Jack was. It must be the ball!"

Ok, I'm not. I'm just kidding.
Well, they were probably within an inch or so in height, and the same weight. And, no, Jack didn't train the same as Jason does, but as far as golf fitness, was there really anyone stronger than Jack? Seriously, I doubt it.

Jason Day could bench press Jack.

Jason Day is far more flexible than Jack. Those 2 factors alone help Day hit the ball far.

golfer07840 · May 12, 2017

but golf courses are not closing because the ball is going to far

This is true

If courses were closing because the ball went too far, then Pinehurst would have shut down their #1 and #3 courses.

And we know they aren't doing that.

Ashley Schaeffer · May 12, 2017

The entire, "ball goes too far" is defensible as to tour pros (kind of, and I'm not sold at all), but when applied to every day courses/players, it cracks me up. It reminds me of a guy we had on the college team when I was a frosh. Yes, I played for a rinky-dink college 100 years ago. He was about 6"4" 240 and played overlength irons, driver, etc. Not a dumb guy overall, but dumber than a bag of hammers when it came to some things. He hit it a ton.

We were on our way to a tourney once when he was complaining that he simply "hit it too far" to score on some of the courses we travel qualified on with their doglegs, water in play after 300, etc. I was a shorter hitter, and he tried to tell me I had the advantage. I told him he could hit his 2-iron even with my driver, be more accurate, and then still have two clubs fewer than me from that point. His response was, "Well, I shouldn't have to. I should get to hit driver like you do." I've never heard a 15 passenger van erupt in laughter more loudly than that.

It's been said, but anyone who thinks their Saturday muni is too short can leave the driver and woods in the trunk. "Shouldn't have to" is a laughable sentiment.

Shilgy · May 12, 2017

The past that sticks out in my mind was the 540 yard par 4 that is too short. That is 100% a course design problem. Not a ball problem. They would be better served by making the green smaller with more trouble around it and shortening the hole as one post earlier suggested. Good course design makes for a better golf experience on less land, not more.
That said, roll the ball back 10% or so. Would take a while to convert at the club level but would save money in the long run.
Other than the handful of courses that host elite events that have added yardage, how so would it save money?

A lot of courses have added tees, even those that do not hold events. Shorter courses have less maintenance. They will also generally have smaller greens, again less maintenance.

Terry Gold · May 13, 2017

One day, some Technical Philosophy or Propositional Calculus Professor will stumble across this thread, leading them to revolutionary concepts and discoveries that will forever change how humans process information.

This thread = Newton's apple

BlackDiamondPar5 · May 13, 2017

The past that sticks out in my mind was the 540 yard par 4 that is too short. That is 100% a course design problem. Not a ball problem. They would be better served by making the green smaller with more trouble around it and shortening the hole as one post earlier suggested. Good course design makes for a better golf experience on less land, not more.
That said, roll the ball back 10% or so. Would take a while to convert at the club level but would save money in the long run.
Other than the handful of courses that host elite events that have added yardage, how so would it save money?
A lot of courses have added tees, even those that do not hold events. Shorter courses have less maintenance. They will also generally have smaller greens, again less maintenance.

Sorry for the randomness of my thoughts but suffering from insomnia this evening....

Just not seeing courses around me that got longer in the last 20 years. Not even seeing the back tees used very often.

So yes I agree a smaller course would be less costly to build and maintain but they've been this way for decades and a relative few have been compelled to build 7k+ yards.

The owner of the course I frequent has installed some new tee boxes that are closer and well positioned to encourage folks to play forward which does help pace inspite of these so-called hot balls.

The ball and club has been distanced limited for 15 years. So the only thing increasing distance in the last 15 would be training. A cheap way to limit distance on tour would be to not mow and roll Fairways so tightly.

playa · May 13, 2017

put quite bluntly, if you don't see a problem with how far the ball is going as an issue, you're not looking deep enough into how it impacts the game and the business of golf.

Not following you. I'm trying to understand.

How does the distance of the current ball adversely impact the game and the business of golf?

I don't agree that a delusional member complaining that a 540 yard par 4 isn't long enough constitutes an adverse affect on the game. I will need more that.

Maintaining 20% more course increases overhead, slow play decreases revenue due to less tee times and more people leaving the game, and pieces of property are stretched to their limit to add deeper tee boxes resulting in longer walks and sometimes dangerous locations too close to other holes.

What part aren't you following? Not being a smart Word not allowed just curious if many of you doubt the logic? These are facts. Not alternative facts. :)

As I said before, put in back tees, do not maintain the ground between back tees and member tees, close back tees outside tournament play.

Serious players get tested in tournaments, regular joes hit from tees suited to their game the rest of the time. Everybody is happy.

Ball killing game = fake news.

new2g0lf · May 13, 2017

Watching highlights of Jason Day, and can't help but think "Boy he isn't nearly as built or strong as Jack was. It must be the ball!"

Ok, I'm not. I'm just kidding.
Well, they were probably within an inch or so in height, and the same weight. And, no, Jack didn't train the same as Jason does, but as far as golf fitness, was there really anyone stronger than Jack? Seriously, I doubt it.

Jack was an outlier in professional golf during his time, just as Tiger was. Today you have guys like Day, DJ, Rory and others that are all better overall athletes than Jack. Strength is just one aspect of physical conditioning and athleticism.

tnord · May 13, 2017

The past that sticks out in my mind was the 540 yard par 4 that is too short. That is 100% a course design problem. Not a ball problem. They would be better served by making the green smaller with more trouble around it and shortening the hole as one post earlier suggested. Good course design makes for a better golf experience on less land, not more.
That said, roll the ball back 10% or so. Would take a while to convert at the club level but would save money in the long run.

would you call this guy a bad designer?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Maxwell

what about this guy? he has high praise for the hole as it relates to the green.

http://www.jimurbinagolf.com/

what about Tom Doak? in his book "The Anatomy of a Golf Course" his lists Prairie Dunes in his "courses worthy of study" in Green Contouring, Bunkering, and Routing.

i hit kinda of a crappy drive/4i past the green on this hole today. it doesn't play that long.

Shilgy · May 13, 2017

The past that sticks out in my mind was the 540 yard par 4 that is too short. That is 100% a course design problem. Not a ball problem. They would be better served by making the green smaller with more trouble around it and shortening the hole as one post earlier suggested. Good course design makes for a better golf experience on less land, not more.
That said, roll the ball back 10% or so. Would take a while to convert at the club level but would save money in the long run.

would you call this guy a bad designer?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Maxwell

what about this guy? he has high praise for the hole as it relates to the green.
http://www.jimurbinagolf.com/

what about Tom Doak? in his book "The Anatomy of a Golf Course" his lists Prairie Dunes in his "courses worthy of study" in Green Contouring, Bunkering, and Routing.

i hit kinda of a crappy drive/4i past the green on this hole today. it doesn't play that long.

You are misunderstanding what I said. I said the hole is not a good design. Not every hole done by your well known designer is a great one. Sometimes designers are limited by the land and sometimes by club demands. I will stand by what I said as you yourself have said it's too short. Too short at 540 is silly. If that extreme downhill make it a par 3. It needs something imo if that length is too short.

tnord · May 13, 2017

i think the new tee, which was done by dave axland - not C&C or Maxwell - is a bad tee.

overall elevation tee to green mostly flat. there's maybe 5yds of elevation tee to fairway to give a visual. i should've never mentioned this hole, because without playing it, people clearly don't understand it.

nic19 · May 13, 2017

Narrow fairways and punative rough on shorter courses. I m in the minority I know but I would like to see pros have to think their way around a course and have the driver taken out of their hands. I loved watching Pavin, Faldo, Langer and Olazabal. Not long but incredible golfing brains.

Lodestone · May 13, 2017

i think the new tee, which was done by dave axland - not C&C or Maxwell - is a bad tee.

overall elevation tee to green mostly flat. there's maybe 5yds of elevation tee to fairway to give a visual. i should've never mentioned this hole, because without playing it, people clearly don't understand it.

Well, it is hard to understand a 540 yard par four that is too short. If you went over it with a driver and an iron, there is probably more going on there than dialing back the ball is going to fix, I'm guessing.

Ashley Schaeffer · May 13, 2017

i think the new tee, which was done by dave axland - not C&C or Maxwell - is a bad tee.

overall elevation tee to green mostly flat. there's maybe 5yds of elevation tee to fairway to give a visual. i should've never mentioned this hole, because without playing it, people clearly don't understand it.

Well, it is hard to understand a 540 yard par four that is too short. If you went over it with a driver and an iron, there is probably more going on there than dialing back the ball is going to fix, I'm guessing.

Especially if it's flat. Is it a 90* dogleg with no trees on the inside or something? Big curve around a lake where it really plays more like 420 (which still isn't "too short"). Driver-4i is a pretty stout par four, I'ms told.

kenwiggins11 · May 14, 2017

Many venues cut and roll the fairways. The average carry distance on Tour is in the 270 range, but almost every week you can see how much roll these guys get. Earlier this year I was watching a rain soaked event and many of the drives were in the 265 - 275 range. And, for the average golfer technology hasn't made a huge difference. The average drive is around 215 yards.

kenwiggins11 · May 14, 2017

He's talking about 1% of 1% of players. That's what's frustrating. They claim to be looking out for everyone but how many people do we all know who are upset about how far they hit it? Probably none. How many players need a 7000yd course to challenge them? 1% of players?

As was posted, they got so offended at the scores Tiger might shoot that they spent "billions" altering courses, creating the very style of play they now lament. And they continue to use the massive courses because you can also get more attendance. Rather than tree lined courses where setting up grandstands is harder. The USGA and tournament committees are responsible for creating the distance chase, but they blame the equipment companies.

Players also train to hit the ball far. They do this because they have to. It's a barrier to entry BECAUSE of the USGA

If all food in the world was on 10 foot shelves. In 20 years do you think humans vertical leap will be higher on average? Of course it will, because you can either jump that high, train yourself to jump that high, or you'll die.

I couldn't care less for his crocodile tears. And find his lack of touch with the 99% of people that play the game concerning. Because "billions" never needed to be spent for them. And was only spent on the pro game out of protection of a number they saw as holy

So much this ^^^^^^

I mean look at sports in general. NFL now has linemen that run in the 40 in high 4.5 to 4.6 range, The best shooters in the NBA were not pulling up from 30+ feet 15-20 years ago and making them. I mean I swing around 100mph and outside my WRX buddies I play with it is not very often some random pairing will hit it by me and I am not long by any WRX means. I dont know how rolling back the ball is going to make the average guy enjoy golf more.

Let's say they rolled the ball back so that if you play from 6500 yards, that's a real test for you. If the pros played from 6900 yards, that would be a real test for them. The course super could set up the regular tees at 5800 yards, and that would be plenty long for the average golfer.

So, the upshot is, everyone is playing a shorter course. And that takes less maintenance, and also takes less time to play. Pretty soon, new courses would be built at no more than 7,000 yards. That would save 1,000 yards of maintenance, and make golf faster to play.

Of course, they could change the ball so that pros would be tested at 6400 yards, you would play 6,000 yards, and me, the average golfer, would play at 5300 yards (the ladies tees). Golf could take less time, and courses would be less expensive.

Maybe some courses would stay long, and you would play the present ball on those courses. But other course could be short, and a new "Tier II" ball would be used on shorter courses. If you played a "Tier II" course, you would expect to play it in 3-1/2 hours. This could be a good thing, no?

And by the way, they could reduce the size of a driver head for elite players to less than 220 cc - and that would put more skill into the long game.

But the average Joe does not need a 7300-7600+ yard course anyways so why build it if there is no chance to host a tour event anyways? Coore/Crenshaw built a track here in 2006 that tips out at 6850 with super wide fairways. I've played it close over 50 times my best round is a +2 73 as anywhere from 1-3 index. Played it with tons of good players no one lights it up. In fact the course record is -6 65 and it has hosted mini tour events state am tourneys etc etc. Quite simply 98% of the time these super long courses do not need to be built and really are just the byproduct of bragging rights and ego's for owners and designers.

i really like this answer..

geesecougar2 · May 14, 2017

Screw the USGA.

They never should have allowed 460cc drivers and multilayer urethane balls to begin with. But they were either dumb or too chicken to stop it from the beginning because they were selling like hotcakes. Instead they focus on ridiculous things like grooves and anchoring. Well it's too late now!

And their tournament sucks. Tricking out courses to play in ways they aren't supposed to play. Have to give Mike Davis credit because he did make the setups slightly better.